This constructor matches way too many argument types (integral,
unscoped enums, FP types), so it's likely to cause mayhem, even if
left in as an explicit constructor.
We now have a named constructor for the same functionality, so just
drop the "unnamed" constructor.
"Unnamed" constructors are important when emplacement is more
efficient than construction + move, or when implicit conversion is
required. Neither is the case here: The named as well as the
"unnamed" constructors just copy ten bytes around, and the compiler
can optimize those extra copies away just fine.
Found in API review.
Pick-to: 6.6
Change-Id: I7faafd3ebf522fb2b0e450112fb95d643fece5ce
Reviewed-by: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Ivan Solovev <ivan.solovev@qt.io>
9c1d20337a